Skip to content →

Category: stories

Doodles worth millions (or not)

Via PD1, who told me the story on her 23rd birthday, yesterday.

The story starts with Alex Matter, whose father, Herbert, and mother, Mercedes, were artists and friends of Jackson Pollock, famous for his drip-paintings. He discovered a group of small drip paintings in a storage locker in Wainscott, N.Y. which he believed to be authentic Pollocks, and if he is proved right, they would be worth millions of dollars.

Usually such discoveries lead to heated debates among art-critics and Pollock-experts whether one finds proof to authenticate the paintings. Not this time. In steps a mathematician who claims that he can authenticate a Pollock drip-painting by calculating its fractal dimension (??!!)… and claims that these drippings cannot be Pollocks because their dimension is too small… LOL!

This madmatician is Richard Taylor from the University of Oregon in Corvallis.

Taylor took a digital image of a Pollock painting into his lab, broke the image into its separate colors, and computed the fractal dimension of the lines in each color. Each time, he got a number between 1 and 2, confirming his notion that Pollock’s paintings are fractal. “Rather than mimicking nature,” Taylor says, Pollock “adopted its language of fractals to build his own patterns.”

In 1999, Taylor reported that the fractal dimension of Pollock’s paintings increased during his life. His early drip paintings have a loose web of lines, mostly at the same scale. Because these paintings show no fractal qualities, their dimension is near 1. But Pollock’s later paintings have a dense network of overlapping lines, ranging from large, bold strokes to delicate threads, Taylor calculated a fractal dimension of 1.72 for these works.

His paper on this “Authenticating Pollock Paintings Using Fractal Geometry” can be found here. Luckily, the story doesn’t end here. In steps a graduate student in astrophysics at Case Western, Katherine Jones-Smith who had to give a seminar talk to her fellow students.

“I was sort of bored with particle astrophysics,” Jones-Smith says, so she looked around for something different. She came across an account of Taylor’s work, and “it sounded really cool,” she recalls.

“The obvious check to me was to make sure that not any old scribble would appear to be fractal,” she says. “So, I made some scribbles.” Much to her surprise, when she computed the fractal dimension of her scribbles, they turned out to be greater than 1.

Recently, she arXived her findings in the paper Drip Paintings and Fractal Analysis from which the above doodles are taken, called appropriately “Gross pebbles” and “Mixed stars”.

When Katherine Jones-Smith made some doodles on a page “”pretty ugly” ones, she says”she found that they shared the qualities of a Pollock, according to an analysis that follows Taylor’s approach. “Either Taylor is wrong, or Kate’s drawings are worth $40 million,” says Jones-Smith’s collaborator Harsh Mathur. “We’d be happy either way.

More on this hilarious story can be found in this science news article, this New-York times story or the Pollocks-bollocks blog entry over at biophemera.

One Comment

sobering-up

Kea’s post reminded me to have a look at my search terms (the things people type into search engines to get redirected here). Quite a sobering experience…

Via Google Analytics I learn that 49,51% of traffic comes from Search Engines (compared to 26,17% from Referring Sites and 24,32% from direct hits) so I should take Search Terms more seriously! Above you can find the top-25.

On 1. there is neverendingbooks. Well, some people seem to remember the blog-name, but require google to remember the URL (neverendingbooks.org)…, okay, fair enough. But from then on… all search terms are iTouch related! The first ‘other’ term is puzzle m at 24. and believe me things do not improve afterwards. Here the only non-Touch related search terms in the top 100 :

  • neverendingbooks.org (40)
  • “puzzle m” (42)
  • moonshine mathematics (79)
  • necklace algebra (80)
  • “calabi-yau algebra (90)
  • “dessin d enfant” (91)
  • “lieven le bruyn” (95)
  • Mathieu group + M(13) (97)
  • 13 points 5 lines puzzle (98)
  • 15 itouch sliding puzzle (99)

the last one is really touching (sic). Is there anybody out there still interested in the mathematics, or should I turn this blog into a yaib (yet another iTouch blog) ???

4 Comments

mathematics for 2008 (and beyond)

Via the n-category cafe (and just now also the Arcadian functor ) I learned that Benjamin Mann of DARPA has constructed a list of 23 challenges for mathematics for this century.

DARPA is the “Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency” and is an agency of the United States Department of Defense ‘responsible for the development of new technology for use by the military’.

Bejamin Mann is someone in their subdivision DSO, that is, the “Defense Sciences Office” that ‘vigorously pursues the most promising technologies within a broad spectrum of the science and engineering research communities and develops those technologies into important, radically new military capabilities’.

I’m not the greatest fan of the US military, but the proposed list of 23 mathematical challenges is actually quite original and interesting.

What follows is my personal selection of what I consider the top 5 challenges from the list (please disagree) :

1. The Mathematics of Quantum Computing, Algorithms, and Entanglement (DARPA 15) : “In the last century we learned how quantum phenomena shape
our world. In the coming century we need to develop the
mathematics required to control the quantum world.”

2. Settle the Riemann Hypothesis (DARPA 19) : “The Holy Grail of number theory.”

3. Geometric Langlands and Quantum Physics (DARPA 17) : “How does the Langlands program, which originated in number
theory and representation theory, explain the fundamental
symmetries of physics? And vice versa?”

4. The Geometry of Genome Space (DARPA 15) : “What notion of distance is needed to incorporate biological utility?”

5. Algorithmic Origami and Biology (DARPA 10) : “Build a stronger mathematical theory for isometric and rigid
embedding that can give insight into protein folding.”

All of this will have to wait a bit, for now

HAPPY & HEALTHY 2008

5 Comments